Ditto
Ditto
So far I have been finding it bit clunky, but can we use liquid threads on the forums to make them more forum like? - π 23:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No, this is a hideous new interface available with MediaWiki 1.16. I was wondering whether we should use it on the forums.
Is horrid. But they always say that about new things. (It's still horrid)
I do like that you can reply to people at levels though.
I hate it. This is a Wiki; whatever happened to signing your posts with four tildes and actually having to hit "reload" to see replies?
You can reply at any level in wiki-lang too, just make the indent appropriate. I do it all the time. ħuman
17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, so I hit "reply" to a comment four above this. That comment did not end up where I wanted it to.
I am assuming that one advantage to this ghastly system is that it avoids edit conflicts? I can't think of any others.
The convenience I like. Can we fix the ugly a bit, throw some colours on it?
I agree with the number. But I'm getting a 4chan vibe from this. so please don't change the saloon bar.
There is a principle in design: "KISS," short for "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Deviate from this principle and things start to become Byzantine in complexity. But if we must have this, could the background color of the boxes be changed to be the same as the page background?
Using MediaWiki as a forum is not simple. You have to manually do indentation, manually sign your comments, you have to deal with unsigned comments, you have to deal with edit conflicts, and the database is littered with redundant data because with every comment the entire page is saved.
(ECx200000000) Hey. You would have edit conflicted me just then, so I am still going to complain about it.
Also, why do the latest replies get cut off when you reload the page, so that you have to click the link "Show X replies" every time?
Because they didn't want people going off on tangents. You're supposed to reply to the first post, not the previous one.
This is fairly simple. You see a comment you wish to reply too. You click reply and you type in the box.
So do we like this idea or not?
NO! NO! NO! (But if they are to be used, the background color should be changed to be the same as the background color of the page.)
It is awful. I don't care what it looks like, I can't even follow this conversation, and my comments are ending up in places I don't expect them to.
The nice thing about using the wiki-syntax for our forums is it is the same as our talk pages and articles - ie, a new user only has to learn one way to have a conversation here.
The problem is that they have to learn how to have a conversation. Let's face it, MediaWiki is not exactly ideal for conversations.
Let's see, all you have to do is click reply, type something and click save. No having to figure out where to insert your comment, how many colons it needs, having to remember to sign your posts, and no edit conflicts.
I dispute the first point, as one has to scroll up and down the page trying to find out which reply button to click. This is harder than typing one more colon than on the last post, or typing four tildes at the end of the post, or even dealing with an edit conflict.
There needs to be a big post new comment button at the bottom of a thread, but otherwise, don't tell me it's harder to find the appropriate reply button than to figure out where to put your comment on a wiki talk page, assuming you're not replying at the bottom.
It is; for the latter, you just have to click "edit" and then grep the text for the post you want to put yours after. Here, because of the new rule about how "you're supposed to reply to the first post, not the previous one" (a remark of yours which, thanks to this new interface, I cannot diff-link to; another reason we should not adopt this, lest we give the Conservapedians ideas), you have to scroll up and down until you find the correct "first post."
Also, why do I have to hunt up and down the page and click an "Update" link before I am able to see my own posts?
So this is, by your own admission, buggy? That would rule it out for site-wide use immediately.
Yes, since it's alpha quality software. I have never denied that. I may have been too optimistic about the timeframe of LQT's maturation before, but right now the only reason it's installed at all is that I've managed to fix rollback on comments. Also, changing every talk page to lqt would be a huge job, we'd have to archive and clean up every talk page.
Right now, it's just here for testing, and if you like it you can enable it on your talk page.
That's why I said it needs a post new comment button at the bottom.
As for difflinks - each comment is actually a separate page. In the "More" dropdown menu you'll find a "link to" button, which will take you to the comment page: Thread:Forum:Use liquid threads in the forum?/Ditto/reply_(18)
What would be nice is a quote feature like most phpBB have.
I've added a reply button to the bottom of threads, hope that makes it more obvious where you need to click. Should I also add a reply button to the right side of the header, where the [edit] link is on normal headers?
But this has the added benefit of being incredibly fugly, in addition to being terrible at conversations.
Reminds me a bit of LiveJournal, honestly.
I don't know, have any of you guys actually used VB or phpBB at all? It's just the same thing but bunged onto MediaWiki. If we used it in the forum space, it would be exactly the same and no one complains about usability issues with proper forum software.
Well, I actually do have issues with "proper forum software", since it is also full of worthless clutter which just makes conversations less easy to follow.
I don't like this. It's not intuitive, even for people used to forums. Things posted as a "reply" don't appear next to comment their replying to, & stacks of comments are hidden, only appearing when you click on "show 14 replies". It's not clear why some comments are tucked away like this & others aren't, or what you can do to make sure your comment remains on the page. This makes it particularly badly suited to what we're trying to do here: gauge the opinions of a wide selection of users, since so many people's comments are going to fall into one of these pockets of invisibility.
It place replies a level under the one you are replying to, in chronological order, like Wordpress blogs. I have it cranked up so that I can see all the replies at once and let me tell you the load time is unbearable. This software is still alpha, which means that the developers still have not settled on the features to be included and there are no plans to use this sitewide - I just wanted to test it in terms of a forum discussion and as the messaging system on my userpage.
How do you get it "cranked up"?
Go to my preferences and change your settings for Threaded discussions.
For instance, this should appear under Pi's comment as I'm second. It would save an edit conflict. But considering this is an experimental extension rather than a full fledged install of VB or similar, it's not bad.
The comments should appear expanded up until the newest one under "new messages" which highlights new replies. The ones tucked away are side-tracked threads without new replies. If someone makes a similar reply under the normal talk page system they're equally likely to be missed. Under the usual way of doing it with talk pages, the intuitive thing is to scroll to the bottom of a section - so if someone's indent etiquette says to post a direct reply in the middle of the discussion, you'll miss it unless you were lucky enough to catch it on recent changes.
Fuck, I just wanted to ask "WHERE DO I ASK TO GET THE "YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES" THING REMOVED FROM MY WATCHLIST?" but I see no way to make a new section or such. Please kill this until it actually works...
At the top where it says, start a new discussion above all the threads.
I do like the idea of folding away old comments by default, but doesn't the new message thing do something similar to that any way? It is had for me to tell because I have set the folding default high enough that I don't get folding.
"There are new messages for you." Where?
This format FUCKING SUCKS ADMIT IT.
Christ, where am I supposed to look in this pile of shit for the "new messages for you"? I have a fucking talk page for "new messages for me". I also have a watchlist I use. This structure needs to DIE a quick death. Because every time I get the "There are new messages for you." I will come here and say this, since I can't find those delightful "new messages" that are supposedly "for me"
KILL THIS NOW.
And I think the new messages page is a great idea, I can see all the new replies to threads I'm following in one place, conveniently highlighted, instead of having to go through Recent Changes (or my watchlist) and spot the pages I'm interested in that have new messages. Going through new replies diff-by-diff is impractical because it is slow, and if I instead look at the whole thread it is hard to find the new comments, especially the ones that go off on a tangent and have been inserted in the middle of a discussion.
The only complaint I have is with the phrasing, I don't think messages is the right word. Maybe replies?
Then click "mark all as read" and it will remove them without you having to bother yourself. Have you not noticed that it highlights the new replies with a box around them? Something that isn't done with new posts anywhere else unless you happen to like trawling through diffs or are lucky enough to catch it on recent changes.
And again, I'm seeing nothing other than "it's crap" and a lot of capital letters.
Seriously, am I the only person that has figured out how to use this without any hand holding? It's not difficult.
" Have you not noticed that it highlights the new replies with a box around them? "
That's the odd part. This conversation came up in my "New Messages" list, but there's nothing highlighted as new. I expanded all the conversations, but there's nothing there.
And the condescending "am I the only person that has figured out how to use this without any hand holding?" is noted and not appreciated.
I had the same thing. It might be because I grabbed the part of this conversation that had the new message and dragged it to another thread.
When people complain they can't figure something out when I did pretty quickly, I have a right to be condescending. Either that or I have Sylar's intuitive aptitude.
But since being a dick is apparently the only way to get any recognition on RationalWiki, I decided to start properly.